🚀 go-pugleaf

"Nige" <post@it.in.thegroup> wrote in message
news:41bc3489_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> "Alan Rutlidge .iinet.net.au>" <rutlidge@<No_Spam> wrote in message
> news:41bc2a96$0$14481$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> > Hi Anne,
> >
> > Considering you need to scan 1000s of negative you should consider a
> proper
> > film scanner.
> >
> > Not cheap but apparently pretty good is the Nikon CoolScan 8000ED.
> >
>
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/scanner/scoolscan_8000_ed/index.htm
> >
> > Some reviews at -
> > http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_scanners.htm#8000
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alan
>
> nice scanner but won't do the job required unless it can hold single
> negatives of weird sizes.
>
> For the photos, any half decent flatbed should be ok, but you may need a
> flatbed with neg scanning abilities for the weird sized cut negatives.  I
> have many family negs from similar period and a lot of the single
negatives
> are not 120 roll film, but all sorts of weird sizes.
>
> Whatever is possible, it's going to be a big job.
>
> Nige.
>
The alternative might be to approach a digital scanning lab for a quote.
With such a high number of negs to scan professional drum scanning might be
the better option.  I'm thinking not only the cost of a good film scanner
but the time to scan them involved.  Of course if personal time isn't an
issue I suppose doing them by hand is entirely feasible and economical.

I'm no expert on the Nikon 8000, but I'm sure it comes with a range of fixed
and adjustable masks for 120 roll film.  Having scanned both transparencies
and negative on a flatbed scanner with a proper film adapter unit I can
assure you it is a time consuming and tedious process I'd rather not have to
do again.


Cheers,
Alan